Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:31:30 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 06:31:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7511da41317e1c66c22f772cd659795f"; logging-data="932140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lPIVogPZ630VT9JtppDg7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:WIA1A0vso8VD7OawICmrDJRyVcU= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4513 On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>> >>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified fact is >>> just a LIE. >>> >>>> >>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>> >>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions >>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). >>> >>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D correctly >>> simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent statement for the >>> behavior of the direct execution of the input as required by the >>> Halting Problem, so you admit you have been LYING every time you >>> imply that it is. >>> >>>> >>>> _D() >>>> [00000cfc](01)  55                      push ebp >>>> [00000cfd](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp >>>> [00000cff](03)  8b4508                  mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>> [00000d02](01)  50                      push eax       ; push D >>>> [00000d03](03)  8b4d08                  mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>> [00000d06](01)  51                      push ecx       ; push D >>>> [00000d07](05)  e800feffff              call 00000b0c  ; call H >>>> [00000d0c](03)  83c408                  add esp,+08 >>>> [00000d0f](02)  85c0                    test eax,eax >>>> [00000d11](02)  7404                    jz 00000d17 >>>> [00000d13](02)  33c0                    xor eax,eax >>>> [00000d15](02)  eb05                    jmp 00000d1c >>>> [00000d17](05)  b801000000              mov eax,00000001 >>>> [00000d1c](01)  5d                      pop ebp >>>> [00000d1d](01)  c3                      ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] >>>> >>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the >>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine >>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>> >>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>> >> >> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >> *and simulates H simulating H* >> > > No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, *This H does do it* D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D as the above line of code requires. The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly simulated by H. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer